Sprawl's Paradox

Robert Bruegmann:

"When asked, most Americans declare themselves to be against sprawl, just as they say they are against pollution or the destruction of historic buildings. But the very development that one individual targets as sprawl is often another family's much-loved community. Very few people believe that they themselves live in sprawl, or contribute to sprawl. Sprawl is where other people live, particularly people with less good taste. Much anti-sprawl activism is based on a desire to reform these other people's lives."

The paradox? Everyone says they are against sprawl, but many (perhaps most) of us are pretty darn happy living in it. This seems paradoxical. Yet, the important paradox may be seen in trying to figure out why being "anti-sprawl" seems to be good politics? I would hope that in this land of liberty the last sentence quoted above was not the case, but alas, I'm afraid it is.

Earmark Reform? Not!

On the Editorial Page of the Wall Street Journal ($$$):

"Under the House bill, all earmarks inserted into appropriations during the conference committee stage must identify the earmarker -- unless, we now discover, the earmark goes to a federal agency, as nearly half of them do. Another notable earmark exception has been carved out for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants that are political honey pots for the Members. As far as we know, the two companies have never received an earmark before -- which raises the question of whether they are about to become a new earmark shelter for the Members to disguise their pork-barrel habits.

Oh, and earmarks directed to state and local governments are also exempt from the requirement under some circumstances. How big a loophole is that? 'It could be as big as the appropriators are clever,' Representative Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) told us. 'And they're pretty clever.' Congressman Flake has been fighting the earmark tide since long before it became a cause celebre, and he's hoping the loopholes can be narrowed when the House and Senate sit down to agree on a common version of the bill." ["Earmark Loopholes," The Wall Street Journal, Friday, May 19, 2006]

Isn't there an old adage that goes something like "watch what they do, not what they say?" Many of the Washington politicians may talk a good game, but when I read things like this I wonder why I shouldn't conclude that Washington these days is rife with corruption. What do you think? Can you give me specific reasons not to reach this conclusion?

Latest NSA Old News

NEWSBUSTERS:

"Even though it’s largely been reported before, today’s USA Today “bombshell” seems too good for the Bush-bashing networks to ignore."

You should read the entire piece which provides a detailed "replay" of stories about this same story from about 6 months ago. Do you suppose those members of the news media reporting now simply forgot they reported the same story earlier? Are there any medications we can give the media for this condition?

Taxes

The Joint Economic Committee released a report on our federal income tax system. Check out the chart at TaxProf Blog that shows the distribution of taxes paid. The bottom 50% in adjusted gross income pay only 3.46% of the total income taxes paid, which leaves 96.54% paid by the upper 50% of adjusted gross income. What's more is that the top 5% in AGI pay over 1/2 of the federal income taxes, and the top 1% pay over 1/3.

It seems to me that a fair and efficient tax system cannot be a tax system with 1/2 the population paying essentially nothing for the goods and services provided by the national government.

Who's a No-Think Economist?

DON BOUDREAUX:

"Roberts’ mode of argument is so disingenuous, his name-calling and innuendo so unscholarly, and his economics so madcap, that I’m tempted to ignore him in much the same way that I ignore the antics of Lyndon LaRouche, Louis Farrakhan, and others who scream from the fringes.

But I resist the temptation."

It's worth a look.

Economics Summer Reading

Summer reading suggestions by Arnold Kling and Greg Mankiw. I would concur with: Easterly, Harford, Lomborg, Blinder, and McMillan.

Iran

Amir Taheri:

"President Bush can learn from the Kennedy, Carter and Clinton models by not repeating their mistakes. What the U.S. needs is an open, honest and exhaustive debate on what to do with a regime that claims a mission to drive the U.S. out of the Middle East, wipe Israel off the map, create an Islamic superpower, and conquer the world for 'The Only True Faith.' The options are clear: retreat and let the Islamic Republic advance its goals; resist and risk confrontation, including military conflict; or engage the Islamic Republic in a mini-version of Cold War until, worn out, it self-destructs.

With the options clear, Messrs. Carter, Brzezinski and Clinton along with other 'engagers' would have to tell us which they favor and, if they like none, what alternative they offer. Calling for talks is just cheap talk. It is important to say what the proposed talks should be about. In the meantime, talk of 'constructive engagement' is sure to encourage President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intransigence. Why should he slow down, let alone stop, when there are no bumps on the road?"

Taheri's commentary is important, and I think he is probably right. At this moment, our political leaders should be engaged in an honest, open, and frank discussion of what our policy should be with respect to a country that espouses the goals Iran espouses. As well, the attention of We The People should also be turned to these issues. I think we should be very concerned about any policy response, or non-response, that allows the Islamic Republic to advance toward it's goals.

Tyranny

A. Yasmine Rassam:

"One torture technique favored by Saddam's henchman and his sons involved raping a detainee's mother or sister in front of him until he talked. In Saddam's torture chambers women, when not tortured and raped, spent years in dark jails. If lucky, their suckling children were allowed to be with them. In most cases, however, these children were considered a nuisance to be disposed of; mass graves currently being uncovered contain many corpses of children buried alive with their mothers.

During Saddam's war with Iran, nearly an entire generation of Iraqi men were killed, injured or captured, leaving a dearth of men of military age in Iraqi society. As a result, Saddam launched 'fertility campaigns' that forcibly administered fertility drugs to school girls as young as 10 in an effort to drive up the population rate.

After the Gulf War--particularly after crushing the Shiite and Kurdish uprisings of 1991--Saddam reverted to tribal and 'Islamic' traditions as a means to consolidate power. Iraqi women paid the heaviest price for his new-found piety. Many women were removed from government jobs and were not allowed to travel without the permission of a male relative. Men were exempted from punishment for 'honor' killings--killings carried out on female relatives who had supposedly 'shamed' their family. An estimated 4,000 women died from honor killings in the ensuing years. By 2000, Iraqi women, once considered the most highly educated in the Middle East, had literacy levels of only 23%.

Under the pretext of fighting prostitution in 2000, Saddam's Fedayeen forces beheaded 200 women 'dissidents' and dumped their head on their families doorsteps for public display. These women obviously lost whatever 'rights' granted to them once they got in Saddam's way.

Saddam Hussein was an equal opportunity killer who tortured, raped and gassed men, women and children alike. From Dujail in the South (the murder of hundreds of villagers for which he is on trial now) to the chemical obliteration of Halabja in the North, all Iraqis bore the brunt of the tyrant's wrath."

Manhattan Gasoline

Washington Post:

"Gas stations are an endangered species in Manhattan, shoved aside by luxury developments and spiraling commercial rents. A cluster of stations sit on prime real estate that has already been rezoned from industrial to residential.

In the past few months, at least four stations have been shuttered. That means there are no more than 54 stations left to service the estimated 830,000 cars, delivery trucks and various other gas-consuming vehicles that crawl through Manhattan's urban canyons each day. It's come to the point that the city's Planning Department is examining strategies to keep the remaining stations in business.

'I don't think they will disappear completely, but I don't see stations being built because of the expense,' said Ralph Bombardiere, executive director of the New York State Association of Service Stations and Repair Shops. 'I don't see anyone putting that kind of investment in it.'

The numbers tend to bear this out. The island is 23.7 square miles of real estate, home to about 1.5 million people. Add to that the tens of thousands of daily commuters, and land in Manhattan becomes what water is to Los Angeles: precious regardless of looks, smell or location.

Scarcity explains, in small part, the borough's astronomical gas prices, says Bombardiere. Fewer stations equals less competition."

Now there's some solid economics: fewer stations equals less competition. But I suppose there is a bigger picture. That is, the fewer stations are the result of ever greater competition for parcels of land.

The article seems to suggest that over time there are fewer and fewer gas stations because there are different economic uses for the land the gas stations now sit on that are willing to bid far greater values for the land than are the gas stations. The story also suggests that government is considering whether to adopt some policies to "correct" the situation:

The city's Planning Department, which makes recommendations for rezoning and tracks demographic shifts, plans to examine strategies for preserving critical services, such as gas stations, in Manhattan, according to Rachaele Raynoff, a department spokeswoman. One option is to provide special zoning protection to gas stations, repair shops and other industrial-age service centers.

Might New York one day protect gas stations because they provide a public service?

Cornelius Burns thinks so. "You absolutely need gas stations," he says. "You would need to do something to protect it."

I'm not sure this makes much economic sense. It seems to me we can't really expect the dynamic adjustments of this urban economy to be characterized by any source of market failure. I also suspect that using some "special zoning protection" will itself introduce inefficiency into the location of economic activities within this urban area. Am I missing something here?

I suppose some may think it is obvious that "you absolutely need gas stations," but perhaps that is not really the most significant concern. Imagine what the price of a gallon of gas might have to be in order for a gas station to be able to out bid the other potential economic uses of the land.

Oh, and I shouldn't forget to point out that we learn from this news story that big oil wins again:

"The winners often turn out to be the oil companies, said Bombardiere, of the gas station association. They typically own the land and set the gas prices. And when they're ready to sell, the companies reap the rewards."

I suggest it doesn't really matter who owns the land. As this urban area continues to grow and prosper and increase in density, the competition for parcels of land will continue to grow and bid up the amounts economic activities will pay for land. Those who own the land now will be the people who benefit from the increasing scarcity values of the land, regardless of the economic nature of the owner.

They Fight For Liberty

Marine Corps 1st Sgt. Bradley Kasal:

"In November 2004, while serving with Weapons Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, Kasal rushed into a house in Fallujah where Marines were trapped in a small room. They were pinned down by Iraqi insurgents firing into the house from a higher and superior position.

The first time, after being shot and crawling to safety, Kasal went back out into the line of fire to rescue an injured Marine.

'I knew I was gonna get shot (again),' he said.

Now, after having suffered seven gunshots, Kasal decided to again put his life at risk.

He would use all of the available field dressings to help stop the bleeding of a gunshot wound suffered by a fellow Marine. He decided not to use any of the dressings for himself and instead 'bleed out.' It just made sense that one of them should survive.

Finally, the insurgent, knowing the injured Marines had no way out, lobbed a grenade into the room. Kasal saw the grenade, and using his own body as a shield, leapt onto his fellow Marine as the grenade exploded.

'I thought the chances of surviving were zero,' he said.

But survive he did, his right leg and buttock riddled with bullets and his body stung by shrapnel."

Corruption

Glenn Reynolds on Congress: "It's as if there's nothing going on but graft and shakedowns."

Bolivia Predator

Reuters.com:

"President Evo Morales ordered the military to occupy Bolivia's natural gas fields on Monday after nationalizing the industry and threatening to expel foreign companies that do not recognize state control."

[ . . . . ]

Morales became president in January on vows to exert more state control over natural resources, reflecting a growing backlash against free markets and foreign investment in Latin America.

The president chose Labor Day, May 1, to announce the nationalization, which stipulates companies will have to leave Bolivia unless they sign contracts within six months recognizing state control.

"This is just the start ... tomorrow or the day after it will be mining, then the forestry sector, and eventually all the natural resources for which our ancestors fought," Morales told a jubilant crowd in La Paz's main plaza.

[ . . . . ]

The government decree says "the state recovers ownership, possession and total and absolute control" of hydrocarbons.

This means the state will own and sell these resources, relegating foreign companies to operators. Previously, Bolivian law said the state no longer owned the gas once companies extracted it from underground.

[ . . . . ]

South America's poorest nation, Bolivia has reserves of some 48.7 trillion cubic feet and exports most of its gas to Brazil and Argentina. Foreign companies have invested more than $3 billion in the last decade, much of it in exploration."

I haven't studied Bolivia's sytem of political economy, but I have to guess that a significant reason Bolivia is "South America's poorest nation" is likely to be a government that embraces economic predation.

Fuel for Thought

Don Boudreaux suggests an interesting way to think about the recent increases in gasoline prices:

"Note that in 2005 our cost of complying with federal-income-tax regulations was $53.7 billion more, in real 2005 dollars, than the extra amount we're now spending compared to 2004, on an annual basis, for gasoline.

And Congress has the gall to pontificate about the alleged unacceptability of the higher prices now charged by oil companies."

Father of the Bush Doctrine

Daniel Henninger writes about his interview with former Secretary of State George Schultz. Here is one interesting passage:

"I wonder out loud whether this view made people nervous back then. GS: 'President Reagan thought it was OK, but there were a lot of people that didn't.' DH: 'Now it's part of the Bush doctrine.' GS: 'I think the idea that you would do everything you can to prevent what is coming at you by way of something very disruptive -- a 9/11 -- it's a no-brainer.'

Was a no-brainer. President Bush's approval rating is in the dumpster, and much of the public is discomfited by the violent reports out of Iraq, which ironically are the product of the same mentality that killed the Marines in 1983. The Iraq war may or may not turn out well, but clearly now it is in a dark moment. When I put this to the former secretary of state, his response, characteristically, is optimism: 'I think this is the most promising moment, almost, in the history of the world -- a time when the information age has made it clear to people what it takes for them to get ahead in their lives and succeed, to have prosperity, to have growth, and it's a critical matter not to have that great opportunity aborted by a wave of radically inspired terrorists. So we have to confront this, and we have to do it on a sustainable basis because it's going to take a long time.'"

Isn't this an interesting point, and one worth much contemplation? It is possible in this day and age to understand the conditions necessary to experience economic prosperity. While it is possible, it seems that even in our own prosperous country it is a lesson relatively few have come to understand.

Mommy, Why are gas prices so high?

Why are gas prices so high? This is the policy debate in a nutshell.

[Hat tip: Arnold Kling]

Say It With Me: Supply and Demand

Charles Krauthammer:

"Supply is down. Start with supply disruptions in Nigeria, decreased production in Iraq, and the continuing loss of 5 percent of our national refining capacity because of damage from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Add to that the mischief of idiotic new regulations. Last year's energy bill mandates arbitrary increases in blended ethanol use that so exceed current ethanol production that it is causing gasoline shortages and therefore huge price spikes.

Why don't we import the missing ethanol? Brazil makes a ton of it, and very cheaply. Answer: the Iowa caucuses. Iowa grows corn and chooses presidents. So we have a ridiculously high 54-cent ethanol tariff and ethanol shortages."

I think his commentary is very helpful in putting the oil prices in perspective. The ethanol tariff is something I have not discovered before. Very interesting observation. But, who would ever think that Congress would take a consistent approach to law and policy?

Smell The Bacon

WSJ today:

"Just when you thought Republicans had sworn off pork spending, along comes an emergency appropriations bill that has Capitol Hill engulfed in the unmistakable aroma of bacon. President Bush has requested $92.2 billion for Iraq and hurricane relief, to which GOP Senators have added $14 billion or more in earmarks to benefit casino operators, condo developers, the shrimp and oyster industry, defense contractors, cotton and corn farmers and other urgent priorities. Mr. Bush threatens his first-ever veto unless the spending bill is cut back to below $95 billion.

Running to the taxpayers' rescue is Senate pork-buster Tom Coburn, last seen battling Alaska's infamous $233 million Bridge to Nowhere. As early as today the Oklahoma Republican will force an up-or-down vote on whether to strip the bill of $700 million for the proposed 'Railroad to Nowhere.' This pet project of Mississippi Republicans Trent Lott and Thad Cochran would reroute railroad tracks that CSX spent $250 million to repair after Hurricane Katrina. The Senators wish to make room for a new road that would just happen to service the gambling and beachfront condominium district of Biloxi."

But the WSJ is a bit late.

Here is the Porkbusters report on the Senate vote which continues spending on the "Railroad to Nowhere":

"Let us all take a moment to honor those brave Senators who stood up for pork barrel spending; who rose to the challenge and declared with one voice 'Screw reform. More pork, please!'

Roll call of shame is below...

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (R-VA)"

I take special note, for various reasons, of the following Senators supporting pork: Allard (my own), Byrd (does he ever vote against spending?), Clinton (pork Presidential?), Coleman, DeWine, Dorgan, Feinstein, Frist, Hatch, Kennedy (what else is new?), Landrieu (I'll vote for your pork if you'll vote for mine), Leahy (bigger is government is always better government no matter the reason?), Murkowski, Schumer (oil evil, government good, eh?), Specter, Stevens (why not a railroad to nowhere, I have a bridge to nowhere), Warner.

Do you know where your Senator was yesterday?

Gas: Markets or Politics?

Don Boudreaux on gasoline:

"I love this market process. People such as me -- people who lack even a whiff of creativity, people who are terribly risk-averse, people who lazily prefer to read novels and work at secure jobs and spend our evenings at home dining and drinking with family and friends -- just sit back and wait for profit-hungry hard-working anxiety-ridden creative entrepreneurs, each in competition with others, to find new ways to improve our lives. And we don't even have to accept what they devise. If we like it, we buy it. If not, we don't buy it."

I think you should read his entire post. I just wish our fearless political leaders understood the economy as Professor Boudreaux does.

Sowell on Immigration

Thomas Sowell:

"Both legal and illegal immigrants have come here primarily to work and make a better life for themselves and their families. But a country requires more than workers. It requires people who are citizens not only in name but in commitment.

Americanization did not happen automatically in earlier times and it will not happen automatically today. Immigrants in an earlier era had leaders and organizations actively working to transform them into Americans -- the Catholic Church with the Irish and numerous organizations among the Jews, for example.

Today's immigrant activists and the politicians who kowtow to them have just the opposite agenda, to keep foreigners foreign and to make other Americans accept and adjust to that. It will be a national tragedy if they succeed.

Just what problem will amnesty solve? Illegal aliens will benefit and politicians will benefit by sweeping the illegality under the rug by making it legal. But how will American citizens benefit? America can lose big time."

I think there is an important issue here that probably hasn't received explicit discussion. A system of political economy implies the foundation of a social contract to which people agree, and by which these people are said to be citizens for which there are both rights and responsibilities. Citizens of the United States share such a social contract and as a matter of simple definition non-citizens do not. As citizens we have the right not to share that social contract with people we do not choose to share it with. Our Constitution gives Congress the power, and thereby the responsibility, to define the criteria that must be satisfied for a non-citizen to become part of our social compact. With this in mind, I think we should expect Congress and the national government to enforce the relevant laws. With such enforcement as a backdrop, we can then consider whether We The People would like to change the criteria for citizenship. There seems little point in giving Congress the power to define (or change) such criteria if it will not first enforce the criteria that have been defined in the past.

Having the Constitution for Lunch

Don Boudreaux:

"I'm aware that what I'm about to ask is the intellectual equivalent of taking your date to a monster-truck rally -- that is, sure evidence of low-brow benightednes and crude sensibilities -- but on what Constitutional basis does the national government in the United States regulate the contents of school lunches?

That Uncle Sam does regulate school-lunch contents is beyond question. See this report in today's New York Times informing us that 'A bipartisan group in Congress plans to introduce legislation today that would prohibit the sale in school not only of French fries but also of other fatty or sugary foods, including soft drinks.'

Put aside all questions of the desirability of such legislation and ask 'Is this legislation Constitutional?'

I've read the U.S. Constitution several times, and nowhere -- not remotely, not even as a penumbra emanating from its text -- does it give to the national government the power to regulate the contents of school lunches. And yet, such a fact inspires no apparent hesitation in the typical member of Congress to regulate in this way."

I think this is an accurate assessment of the Constitution. Unfortunately, it is not just the typical member of Congress that thinks Congress has the power to impose such regulations. More importantly, far too many members of the judiciary seem not to have a copy of the Constitution that looks like the one Boudreaux and I have.